🚀 go-pugleaf

Here is something for the un-knowing.


------- quote ------


(As found on:  http://xent.ics.uci.edu/FoRK-archive/mar98/0250.html)

Mike Godwin (mnemonic@well.com)
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:21:10 -0500 



"Certainly I never said anything originally about whether the mention of
Nazis means the discussion is over -- there are countless instances to the
contrary.

The primary mutation of Godwin's Law (not discussed, infra, for obvious
reasons) states that when such a reference or comparison occurs,
*meaningful* discussion is over.


Speaking empirically, I think there is a lot of truth to this mutation.


It is a common mistake to interpret the original version of Godwin's Law
as
primarily a probability statement. If that were so, it would never have
had
any currency. It is intended, of course, as a statement about online
rhetorical excesses, and as an implicit criticism of one of those
excesses.



--Mike

-------- snip ---------

>> /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
>> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
>> one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
>> that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has
>> automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law
>> thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
>> thread length in those groups.

------- end of snip -------"

------- end of quote ------


A really sad put true analogy.


ELR



~~~~~~~~~~ 1 Jun 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~


On 1 Jun 2000, Matthias Duebendorfer wrote:

>Date: 1 Jun 2000 11:09:40 GMT
>From: Matthias Duebendorfer <matthias_d@gmx.ch>
>Newsgroups: ch.admin
>Subject: Re: UCE --> Marcello's EM 2000-Toto - Es kann losgehen ...
>
>Marcello Bruno schrieb in Artikel <8h465a$a0r$1@bw107zhb.bluewin.ch>:
>
>>Frag bei Hitler nach ...
>>und tätowier dem Mailabsender einen Zahlencode in den Unterarm.
>
>[X] Du hast verloren.
>
>Aber vermutlich hast Du Ober-Super-Internetexperte noch nie von 
>Godwin's Law gehört...
>
>   Matthias
>